Lil bro said "5-whole" 💀

They're not getting taller. The "perfect" height now for a goalie is 6'4" or 6'5" but that is the ceiling. This is considered the best height for a goalie to get into the butterfly quickly while still covering the upper part of the net. I remember watching an AHL game and one of the teams had a giant of a man at 6'8" playing goalie. The one commentator said he's TOO tall because in order to get down quicker, he has to keep his stance wider, which then means he has a huge 5 hole opening. There's no way he will play in the NHL because of his wide stance, players at that level will exploit that too easily. That game was about 8 years ago. Teams in the NHL have come to the consensus that 6'5" is pretty much the ceiling for goalies these days.

@@darksaga80 One of the reasons why Saros at 180 cm is elite goalie.

hole*

I was going to add that in too but ran out of time as I didn't want AM to score again before posting haha. But love the concept of lower shots getting to goalies faster. Its why in ASG fastest shooters try and keep the puck low.

Just to add to my comment, every year since 18/19 the Art Ross winner has either scored 120+ points or paced for it during shortened seasons. From 13/14 through 16/17 there were only 3 players who even broke 100 points (Sidney Crosby in 13/14, Patrick Kane 15/16 and Connor McDavid in 16/17) and none of them even broke the 110 point barrier. Between McDavid, Draisaitl, Kucherov and Mackinnon there has been 4 players who have managed to exceed or come very close to exceeding the 130 point barrier or in MacKinnon's case have paced for it over a significant portion of the season(75% of the season) since the 18/19 season. This year is trending to go the same as MacKinnon is on pace for 134, Kucherov on pace for 133, McDavid for 120 and Pastrnak for 119. I expect MacKinnon and Kucherov to cool off as the season progresses but still at least one of them should end up above 120 points provided they avoid injury (would be a miracle for Mackinnon based on his career, I'm rooting for him to take home the Art Ross and a Hart finally).

you know gear has done nothing but shrink for 40 years right, and this is an easily verified statement. Pads, chest protectors, sticks, gloves, blockers, all have shrunk in multiple ways especially pads. The improvements to goaltending are structure and discipline. Heavy rebounds generated by the style we play is purely preference on pad facing materials. And this is why players shoot low.

@@Jake0997 I never said that all improvements to goaltending were strictly due to pad size, just a large portion of it. There were crackdowns on pad size in 03/04 as well as 13/14, but they did not go far enough with it. That's why it was reduced again after 16/17. Look at Giguerre during Anaheim's cup run, compared to both the 80's and today's goaltenders. He looked absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, just look at goalie stats now and In comparison to before 2018/2019 Average goaltender save percentages dropped from .911 down to .905 immediately following the change, and as players have adjusted to more open room it has dropped even further to now this year and last the average is at .899 The video is not discussing players shooting low for rebounds, it is discussing players shooting low more often to score. One of the areas they cracked down on was the chest and shoulder protection, which opened up more room up top for shooters. This is especially evident to me when you see how much more often players are beating goalies high when they use the rvh on the post. That vulnerability up high is what has lead to what the video is talking about.

And maybe why Quick is having a bounce back year too!

Yes on TikTok and IG we did a series of Sexy Places to Shoot and talked about the "Ear Whistler" - check it out and let us know what you think!

100% you gotta love the mind games. In a few years this video will be completely irrelevant as goalies will catch on

⁠@@AlongTheIceHockeythis shot will always be viable and the new way to score. It’s easier to track a puck high glove or blocker than it is that low. It takes more movement to get to low blocker or glove then it does to move high. What’s causing the goals are players are changing the angles slightly. This is the new nhl will be this way for a while

It’s like they know theres a high chance of it going in even though its almost at the line down low

@@karigrandii since the tendy is typically in a "I need to push off" mindset on post hard for them to get down in time to stop this if they aren't in the RVH

I had to make that myself by watching all of his goals! Tried to find a site for it but no dice.

Impressive or false advertising

“Just trust me” 😂

I mean...if the goalie is sitting on the goal line maybe. Even a 5' 7" goalie's shoulders will still be even with or slightly above the crossbar at the top of their crease in butterfly from the pucks perspective. If you're shooting at their ears when they're in good position and on their angle you're shooting over the net by 6 inches minimum. If they're backed in and sitting really deep in their crease it's a little different but theres not many goalies that do that aside from very tall pro goalies that also understand their angles well enough that over their shoulders isn't open. If you're going to go upstairs on a goalie in position you're aiming at their elbows when they're in their stance but just a couple inches outside and above that point. Those will be the upstairs and bar down shots. Scoring upstairs still means you have to shoot beside the goalie to find net.

Hintz is one of the best five hole shooters in the league

Noticed this too across the league but specifically on the PP. I think it has to do with PK units keeping 3 guys high. This is allowing for more tips out front and more slot goals but cutting down the classic one-time bombs Reinhart is feasting off this. Granted a lot of his goals are technically one-timers but not the typical huge wind up ones we've seen so much of on the flanks.

@@AlongTheIceHockey Interesting. That makes a lot of sense actually

I’ll be sure to bring my ruler out

@@Santi-mj1hl I use a meter because a ruler is only 12" and I've cut it down to 14 so when I hit the top, it goes on.

Noticed that. He’s scored five hole from serious distance though traffic

I could've said this better. But reducing bad outcomes (missing net) combined with how goalies are playing today shooting low is becoming more profitable.

Finally another person that references right triangles in shooting

Well the point that there are fewer bad outcomes when you shoot low, which was the gist of his math, is still valid. Also, I wouldn't say players shoot low because it is the shortest travel distance to the net. That is one benefit of shooting low, but not the reason. The reason is the cat-and-mouse game someone mentioned above. Goalies back in the day used to stand up a lot more, possibly because they weren't wearing a mask, and so shooting low was good. Then goalies developed the butterfly which covered the low part of the net really well, so players started shooting high. Now goalies have caught onto high shots to some extent, so players are going back low/middle. So, the REASON for shooting low is that it's a valid adaptation, but a BENEFIT is that it's shorter travel distance.

Sorry friend, but I think you are wrong. The shots that were viewed are all within 20 feet of the net and usually much less. When a player shoots from those distances, the goalie is either in position to block it or it's going in. There is no reacting, whether the shot is longer (as in your example) or not. There is simply not enough time for the goalie to move. Players shoot low, because they know the goalie is going down into the butterfly, and their glove or blocker will be higher than their leg which is now on the ice. If you go between the arm or the leg, it'll be a goal. However, if they go over the hand and below the cross bar, it'll still be a goal, because there is no time to lift for the goalie to lift their hand. It's a tougher shot though. More difficult to execute successfully. Goalie's will change their tactics to account for this soon (some may have already done so). But in doing that, they will leave some other place open and shooters will attempt to exploit it. Slightly longer shot or not, shoot where you have the best chance to score. Another thing is that players study goalies. They know their strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. They already have a plan going into the game about where they want to shoot. PS - If you have never stood behind a goalie during warm-ups, you should do so. It's amazing what they can react to, but for close shots, their is no reaction time.

@@danreed2189 - you must be one of those guys who doesnt like facts and reality. Math is math bud, shorter distance = shorter time to react for goalies.

I do like, "facts and reality," The fact is that I understand that there is a variable that you are not accounting for. In the case of shots very close to the net, the increased reaction time is irrelevant, because the goalie still does not have time to move in order to block the shot. If the shot was from further away and the goalie did have time to move, your point would be valid. To summarize, for shots close to the net, increased reaction time has no bearing on the outcome. That is my point. If you don't get that, i can't help you.

True, as a lefty low blocker doesn’t look open but it is there. That’s a mental blocker shooters have to get past! Speaking on angles, fastest point to net is straight line along the ice.

Sure thing - shoot us an email at alongtheice.com